Although it is clearly true and not in fact irrelevant, I went for the Rodgie option

Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber

Only a bunch of convicts having been beaten 3-0 and gone 9 tests without a win and won just 1 in 11 against England could go into the home series saying they will win. England will win in Australia again this winter as they are a better side which they have shown this summer. 3-0 doesn't lie girls.

I'd rate it between superb and mediocre -- respectable sounds about right!

There are a few cringeworthy lines there, and these spoilt the commentary in the early days -- as everyone was going for comedy, you had overs where something wacky happened almost every ball. Now that lots more normal ones have been added, it's a lot better.

I like to be able to imagine Sandwith tonking a straight six or guiding a square cut.

Aside from the fact that the commentary is far more Benny Hill than Richy Benaud, there are two things which annoy me.

1. The number of times shots hit the stumps at the non-striker's end. I've been playing cricket 17 years now, and I can not recall more than a dozen occasions when this has happened in RL?

2. Lines of commentary which are clearly retrospective rather than ostensibly having been spoken at the time of the event. I can't be bothered finding the exact wording, but that one about a small child being hit in the head and having to be taken to hospital is a good example. At the time the child was hit, how could the commentator know that they'd have to b taken to hospital? Similarly there's the line about the ball being knocked up a drain-pipe and a few minutes later the game carries on.

But all in all, it's a sight more interesting than sitting here watching numbers change on a scorecard!